PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
743.76 - 757.57
479.80 - 796.25
8.25M / 11.73M (Avg.)
27.40 | 27.58
Steady, sustainable growth is a hallmark of high-quality businesses. Value investors watch these metrics to confirm that the company's fundamental performance aligns with—or outpaces—its current market valuation.
-3.84%
Negative revenue growth while SNAP stands at 1.58%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-6.91%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-32.23%
Negative EBIT growth while SNAP is at 15.79%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-32.23%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-34.28%
Negative net income growth while SNAP stands at 14.82%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-33.60%
Negative EPS growth while SNAP is at 15.38%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-33.33%
Negative diluted EPS growth while SNAP is at 15.38%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.81%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.96%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-20.55%
Negative OCF growth while SNAP is at 145.09%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-93.17%
Negative FCF growth while SNAP is at 112.28%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
1881.51%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 2988.51%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
195.56%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 316.00%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
68.19%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 119.08%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
3397.72%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 126.27%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
74.19%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 122.10%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
11.55%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 163.64%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
6821.46%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
2.91%
Below 50% of SNAP's 37.82%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-22.70%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
689.98%
Equity/share CAGR of 689.98% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
91.95%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
41.42%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 8.08%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-2.59%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
5.37%
Positive asset growth while SNAP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-0.52%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
61.20%
We have some new debt while SNAP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
5.52%
R&D dropping or stable vs. SNAP's 11.73%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
8.84%
We expand SG&A while SNAP cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.